Hillary Clinton

Shut up.

Do you say the same things about Gore and Kerry?

ErikJ972 said: "ChildofEarth said: "Do you say the same things about Gore and Kerry?"

To be fair, neither Kerry or Gore wrote books called "What Happened" 6 months after their lost elections. And they didn't go on book tours blaming others for their losses."

Have you read the book? Because if you did, you'd realize that she accepts blame for the loss right off the bat. She outlines very clearly what she did wrong.

I don't know who's more annoying.

The Hillary haters who insist she must shut up /must go away.

Or the Hillary idolaters who insist she's the only person on earth entitled to be immune from criticism when she does say what she wants to say.

Updated On: 9/18/17 at 11:45 AM

And I don't think she should shut up. But I wish she would spend more time looking forward instead of looking back.

Why do some seem so certain that that 8-12% of Sanders primary voters would have voted for Clinton in November, or would not have voted for Trump, or would have voted at all in November if Sanders had never run against Clinton to begin with?

As I recall, many Clinton supporters insisted that some significant minority of Sanders primary voters were false flaggers; that they were intent on boosting the Republicans' chances of a victory in November because they thought Clinton would be a far more successful candidate for the Dems in November than Sanders would have been.

If that's true (is it?), wouldn't that clearly indicate that some significant portion of those 8-12% of Sanders primary voters might well have never supported Clinton in the general under any circumstances?

If that's not true (and it may well not be!), there is still no reason to be convinced that Sanders's bid for the nomination hurt Hillary Clinton in the general election.

As for Comey, is anyone asking the to my mind obvious question: would it have really helped Hillary Clinton if Comey hadn't announced the investigation into the Weiner laptop, but instead this part of the investigation had leaked out and the media would have had a frenzy with Comey not having weiged in on what was happening while that phase of the investigation was being pursued? Or might it well have hurt her?

My firm belief is that the leaks would have happened and the effect on the Clinton campaign if Comey had not been as candid would have been far more devastating to the Clinton campaign than Comey's having revealed what was happening.

Russian involvement in the election is certainly a concern to most Americans and needs to be fully investigated. But I'm far from convinced that that was the dispositive force in the election's outcome.

Clinton should say whatever she wants to say about the election. About what went wrong.

And I'm glad that she is taking any significant share of responsibility.

But I disagree with much of what she's saying. And I believe that much of what she's saying is not helpful to the Democratic party moving forward.

And I'm not going to pretend otherwise.

Moreover, far more Clinton 2008 primary voters voted for McCain in 2008's general election than Sanders 2016 primary voters voted for Trump in 2008's general election.
If McCain had beaten Obama in 2008, would it have been persuasive for Obama supporters to blame his loss on Clinton's primary voters?

Of course not. It would have been a very ill-advised thing to do politically. And a completely unconvincing one logically.

Big time Hillary supporter Joe Lieberman went to the 2008 RNC and endorsed John McCain for president.

If McCain would have won, would it have been a productive thing for Obama supporters to use Liberman's endorsement to somehow blame that theoretical outcome on the 2008 election on Hillary Clinton's supporters and, by extension, on Clinton herself?

No.

Would it have been a persuasive argument?

No.

And as far as Sanders challenging Clinton's record on corporate support, on Iraq..... well, so did Obama in 2008.
More critically, there is nothing wrong with Democrats challenging each other and providing the party with policy choices.

Updated On: 9/18/17 at 12:25 PM

Not at all sure I'm following your first point, LYLES3637, but I couldn't agree with you more that protest votes are suicidal. I voted for Sanders in the primary, by the way, and voted for and campaigned for Clinton during the general, and had many issues with some friends who could not vote for her in the general (though, in their case, they did so in states that they believed would go strongly for Clinton, and did... but I still had a problem with their decision and I told them so).

I'm not at all sure that those Sanders voters who voted for Trump, as horribly misguided as they were, were what we ordinarily think of as progressives or liberals. No more than I would suggest that those Clinton primary voters who voted for McCain were what we ordinarily think of as center left neoliberals. True, those Sanders voters who voted for Stein were probably all progressives and liberals, but I fear the issue with many - by no means all - was an overconfident certainty - which a great many Americans had - that Clinton was going to win the election. Which doesn't excuse their decision, but still gives it political pespective.

But I also think there's something very much like party-sabotage in some of Clinton's analysis, which is not only divisive and very badly timed but which includes theories that simply fail as convincing interpretations of the election.

Having said that, I would say that much of the rhetoric against her is also highly counterproductive. She certainly should voice her opinions as she sees fit. But that doesn't mean that her opinions are either sacrosanct or persuasive, or that those who challenge them are necessarily disrespecting or stifling her. Though, as I said, some are.

Updated On: 9/18/17 at 01:16 PM

South Florida said: "dosen't she realize the very sight of her is offensive."

Apparently not since she keeps using the same face and body every time she goes out in public. Perhaps you should write her a strongly worded letter.

I also suggest reading this article.

"Hillary Clinton’s “coal gaffe” is a microcosm of her twisted treatment by the media"

https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2017/9/15/16306158/hillary-clinton-hall-of-mirrors

Stop it Frankie I'm not a misogynist. I think at this point Hillary and Nancy are bad for the brand because many Independents are repulsed by them, maybe because they're women, but also because they're the same old ineffective losers that along with Debbie Wasserman Schultz, have dragged this party down. That they all happen to be women is not misogyny just a fact.

Why do we blame Sanders voters for Trump winning when it was Clinton voters who elected an unelectable candidate during the primaries?

>Why do we blame Sanders voters for Trump winning when it was Clinton voters who elected an unelectable candidate during the primaries?

Because the margin of Sanders to Trump voters is what got him elected. The idea of going from Sanders to Trump is idiotic on ideology alone. They did not give two ****s about Bernie's platform. The "unelectable candidate" walked away with 3 million more votes.